JUDGMENT:

Heard Sri Nimmagadda Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Chandra Sekhar Ilapakurti, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This is a defendant’s appeal. The respondent as the plaintiff laid the suit for recovery of Rs.1,37,600/- basing on a mortgage by deposit of title deed against the appellant repayable with interest at 24% per annum and for costs.

3. The case of the respondent is that on 08.6.1997 the appellant borrowed Rs.80,000/- from him executing a promissory note therefor agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum. It is the further case of the respondent that on 09.6.1997, the appellant upon depositing a registered gift deed dated 09.9.1992 in her favour (Ex.A.2) with the respondent created an equitable mortgage offering security for repayment of the amount due under the above promissory note. Stating that in spite of repeated demands, since the appellant failed to repay the due, the suit was filed.

4. The main defence of the appellant is denial of execution of the promissory note and creation of equitable mortgage in favour of the respondent. Thus, she denied liability. One of the objections raised by the appellant is that since the promissory note is appearing on a non-judicial stamp paper, it cannot be admitted in evidence since it is not usual format using a revenue stamp. She pleaded that there were disputes between her and her husband, which had lead to their estrangement. She further pleaded that her husband gave title deed to the respondent and got the suit filed against her.

5. Learned trial Judge on the pleadings settled the following issues for trial:

1. Whether the suit mortgage is true, valid and supported by consideration?

2. Whether the defendant is entitled to exemplary costs?

3. To what relief?

6. Thereupon, the parties went to trial where the respondent examined himself as P.W.1 and P.Ws.2 & 3 were examined to support his version, who are the Scribe and Attestor to the promissory note respectively. The appellant examined herself as D.W.1. No further evidence was let in on her behalf.

7. Considering the material on record and the evidence, learned trial Judge rejecting the defence decreed the suit against the appellant.

8. The appellant presented A.S. No.78 of 2010 on the file of the Court of learned Principal District Judge, West Godavari at Eluru, against the decree and judgment of the trial Judge. Upon reappraisal of the material and evidence, learned appellate Judge confirmed the findings arrived at by the learned trial Judge and consequently the appeal was dismissed.

9. This second appeal is presented, in the above circumstances.

10. At the stage of admission, notice was ordered to the respondent and therefore, learned counsel for the respondent appeared for him.

11. The main contention of Sri Nimmagadda Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the appellant, is that there is no material or proof relating to demonstration of intention to create equitable mortgage propounded by the respondent and that the appellant has established the circumstances under which Ex.A.2 Title Deed came in possession of the respondent. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the evidence let in for the respondent in proof of the suit promissory note is not convincing nor acceptable and therefore, in these circumstances both the Courts went wrong in accepting the version of the respondent. The findings recorded by both the Courts below being perverse particularly the trial Court, learned counsel for the appellant requests interference in this Second Appeal on the substantial questions of law set out in the Memorandum of Appeal.

12. Sri Chandra Sekhar Ilapakurti, learned counsel for the respondent, referring to the evidence on record and the circumstances under which the suit promissory note was accepted, apart from creating an equitable mortgage as security for repayment in favour of the respondent by the appellant, contended that in the light of consistent and concurrent fin